UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7350


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-
00798-REP-DJN)


Submitted: May 28, 2020                                           Decided: June 9, 2020


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mustafa Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Mustafa Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

See Buck v. Davis, 

, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Muhammad has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We also deny Muhammad’s motion for a transcript at government

expense, as well as his motion to reconsider this court’s order deferring action on the

motion for a transcript. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED



                                             2